But there is a trap here.The 70's prog rock bands wanted to take popular music to the next level. So the term "progressive" was born in the context of doing popular music with the classical vision. Classical vision being not limiting yourself to the rules and limitations that are self-imposed by popular music. Part of that classical vision is also excellence.

Thinking about it this way, you could say, then that a band that Periphery is not progressive, because they do not strive for excellence and an artistic goal but are rather just playing whatever the crowd wants, and writing terrible songs for the sake of patching up "cool" things together with no deeper purpose (Besides getting big bucks).

Unlike standard rock: more of a 'narrative' or story (start theme revisisted at the end, after a 'journey' in between), longer melodic progression within phrases, and greater harmonic capability... Unlike death metal: locked into the rhythm of the drums, and scales are mostly diatonic (non-chromatic).

Unlike standard rock: more of a 'narrative' or story (start theme revisisted at the end, after a 'journey' in between), longer melodic progression within phrases, and greater harmonic capability... Unlike death metal: locked into the rhythm of the drums, and scales are mostly diatonic (non-chromatic).

This track was a collection of ideas and genres mashed together and thrown into a blender. There was no sense of narrative and I probably contracted HIV.

If we are talking about bands that use rock instrumentation, that incorproate some elements of metal (whatever they might be) and that have a more interesting underlying structure than standard rock music (what most people mean, when they say 'Progressive Metal') then here is a list:

All this is progressive rock, with metal aesthetics (image or sound), and sometimes metal riffs.

The underlying similarity, along with a more 'extended'/narrative-based apporach to songwriting than standard rock music, is simply 'heaviness' - weight, and/or significance in the impact of the music.

The point of this is not to suggest this should take the place of metal in people's minds, or be celebrated as metal, but to suggest that merely the incorrect labelling of this sort of music by labels and bloggers (as 'Progressive Metal') does not invalidate it. It is a leap above most of the soulless, talentless nonsense we are all repreatedly exposed to each day against our will.

"Progressive" is a marketing term that's usually synonymous with "mediocre".

Well, then that is why some 'conceptual analysis' is in order. Who cares about how marketers use the term. Let's more accurately determine the reference of terms like Progressive Metal and Progressive Rock. That's what I would hope we do here, not simply make endless quips regarding STDs. Despite being humorous on occasion, they add absolutely nothing to the actual content of an argument, despite how it might feel when egaged in the gusto of writing them.

Instead of things going to defcon 1 around here when genre labels are incorrectly used, and decrying whole slabs of music just because they are erroneously called '-metal' (as opposed to because they are internally bad examples of music), it might be more constructive to criticise genuinely bad music instead (and correctly classify bands).

1. AIDS. Retarded stop-start riffs are "interesting" only in that they're used to replace any skill at song composition. There is no sense of narrative connection between each segment (sound familiar?). Both soulless and talentless.2. In what way is this "progressive"? It's either inept metal or misguided grunge with an embarrassing interlude that has no artistic relevance. This is degeneration. 3. Already discussed.4. This is pop music with the aesthetics of metal.5. 6 minutes of elevator music followed by horribly cliched hard rock. I don't see progression.6. Emo rock [grunge] This hasn't been new for 20 years.7. Humiliating stadium metal.

What all have in common, with perhaps the exception for the last one, is an inability to construct a song. Because of this, they throw collections of riffs together and call it progressive to get the 2DEEP4U crowd to buy it. This is inferior to standard rock music that is able to construct a real song.

1. AIDS. Retarded stop-start riffs are "interesting" only in that they're used to replace any skill at song composition. There is no sense of narrative connection between each segment (sound familiar?). Both soulless and talentless.2. In what way is this "progressive"? It's either inept metal or misguided grunge with an embarrassing interlude that has no artistic relevance. This is degeneration. 3. Already discussed.4. This is pop music with the aesthetics of metal.5. 6 minutes of elevator music followed by horribly cliched hard rock. I don't see progression.6. Emo rock [grunge] This hasn't been new for 20 years.7. Humiliating stadium metal.

What all have in common, with perhaps the exception for the last one, is an inability to construct a song. Because of this, they throw collections of riffs together and call it progressive to get the 2DEEP4U crowd to buy it. This is inferior to standard rock music that is able to construct a real song.

7 is a song, but it just sucks.

There was 20 minutes between your post and that of the collection of songs. At least have the patience to listen to the music you're supposed to be analysing objectively for God's sake! The first tack alone goes for 15 minutes.

I see little point in arguing with you over this, if you are not even willing to listen to the damn material. But just one example: The idea that Cog are just 'grunge'. If you think this, then you really don't have a wide exposure to music, despite what you might think.

Grunge has none of the rhythmic sophistication of Cog. Grunge is much closer to punk via Sabbath.

Sophistication? What? Clean tone noodling and a few stop-start riffs followed by strumming? The only part of the track that passably competent is the drumming.

I think it's obvious that the band is foundationally a grunge band, as is Tool. The vocals, contrast between clean/distorted sections, guitar riffs, and themes are within the constraints of that genre. Dressing it up a bit does not change that.

Sophistication? What? Clean tone noodling and a few stop-start riffs followed by strumming? The only part of the track that passably competent is the drumming.

I think it's obvious that the band is foundationally a grunge band, as is Tool. The vocals, contrast between clean/distorted sections, guitar riffs, and themes are within the constraints of that genre. Dressing it up a bit does not change that.

My sincere guess is that you're unable to perceive the differences between grunge and a band like cog, the same way people who have little exposure to modern art might lump surrealism and dadaism together.

Do you know what a polyrhythm is?

Do you know what 7/8 time means? And 9/8? Both of which are used in the Cog song.

There is no progression between different time signatures in grunge! Differently, there is no use of non standard time signatures in grunge!

You'll probably say this is mere 'dressing up'. But who are you to say that the manipulation of rhythm and pulse, an order of magnitude beyond the norm, is mere 'dressing up'. This might be like me saying, the use of chromatic 'riff salad' compositional techniques in death metal is just the 'dressing up' of NWOBHM and speed metal. Pfff.

Alterations between clean and distorted riffs? But we have this in 0peth! 0peth aren't bloody grunge now are they?!

And what objective features of that retarded Ildjarn track makes it profound? I'm starting to worry about you. Don't get me wrong, I love good black metal, but defending that track just because it's a certain band rings immediate alarm bells with me. I even like some Ildjarn.